[PATCH] drm/i915: Make WAIT_IOCTL negative timeouts be indefinite again

[PATCH] drm/i915: Make WAIT_IOCTL negative timeouts be indefinite again

[Chris Wilson]

This fixes a regression from

commit 5ed0bdf21a85d78e04f89f15ccf227562177cbd9
Author: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Date:   Wed Jul 16 21:05:06 2014 +0000

    drm: i915: Use nsec based interfaces

that made a negative timeout return immediately rather than the
previously defined behaviour of waiting indefinitely.

Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
Cc: Kristian Høgsberg <krh@bitplanet.net>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 7 ++++---
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
index 0cb858269be9..9d0df4d85693 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
@@ -2957,9 +2957,9 @@ i915_gem_wait_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, struct drm_file *file)
 	req = obj->last_read_req;
 
 	/* Do this after OLR check to make sure we make forward progress polling
-	 * on this IOCTL with a timeout <=0 (like busy ioctl)
+	 * on this IOCTL with a timeout == 0 (like busy ioctl)
 	 */
-	if (args->timeout_ns <= 0) {
+	if (args->timeout_ns == 0) {
 		ret = -ETIME;
 		goto out;
 	}
@@ -2969,7 +2969,8 @@ i915_gem_wait_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, struct drm_file *file)
 	i915_gem_request_reference(req);
 	mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
 
-	ret = __i915_wait_request(req, reset_counter, true, &args->timeout_ns,
+	ret = __i915_wait_request(req, reset_counter, true,
+				  args->timeout_ns>0 ? &args->timeout_ns : NULL,
 				  file->driver_priv);
 	mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
 	i915_gem_request_unreference(req);
-- 
2.1.4

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Make WAIT_IOCTL negative timeouts be indefinite again

[shuang.he]

Tested-By: PRC QA PRTS (Patch Regression Test System Contact: shuang.he@intel.com)
Task id: 5886
-------------------------------------Summary-------------------------------------
Platform          Delta          drm-intel-nightly          Series Applied
PNV                 -2              280/280              278/280
ILK                                  308/308              308/308
SNB                 -1              328/328              327/328
IVB                                  379/379              379/379
BYT                                  294/294              294/294
HSW                                  387/387              387/387
BDW                 -1              316/316              315/316
-------------------------------------Detailed-------------------------------------
Platform  Test                                drm-intel-nightly          Series Applied
*PNV  igt_gen3_render_mixed_blits      FAIL(1)PASS(2)      NRUN(1)PASS(1)
*PNV  igt_gen3_render_tiledx_blits      FAIL(1)PASS(4)      CRASH(1)PASS(1)
 SNB  igt_kms_pipe_crc_basic_read-crc-pipe-A-frame-sequence      DMESG_WARN(1)PASS(4)      DMESG_WARN(1)PASS(1)
*BDW  igt_gem_gtt_hog      PASS(3)      DMESG_WARN(1)PASS(1)
Note: You need to pay more attention to line start with '*'
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Make WAIT_IOCTL negative timeouts be indefinite again

[Daniel Vetter]

On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 06:09:26PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> This fixes a regression from
> 
> commit 5ed0bdf21a85d78e04f89f15ccf227562177cbd9
> Author: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Date:   Wed Jul 16 21:05:06 2014 +0000
> 
>     drm: i915: Use nsec based interfaces
> 
> that made a negative timeout return immediately rather than the
> previously defined behaviour of waiting indefinitely.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> Cc: Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
> Cc: Kristian Høgsberg <krh@bitplanet.net>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org

Do you have the igt for this too? I think an wait while the buffer should
be busy with a negative timeout is all that's needed to exercise this.
-Daniel

> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 7 ++++---
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> index 0cb858269be9..9d0df4d85693 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> @@ -2957,9 +2957,9 @@ i915_gem_wait_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, struct drm_file *file)
>  	req = obj->last_read_req;
>  
>  	/* Do this after OLR check to make sure we make forward progress polling
> -	 * on this IOCTL with a timeout <=0 (like busy ioctl)
> +	 * on this IOCTL with a timeout == 0 (like busy ioctl)
>  	 */
> -	if (args->timeout_ns <= 0) {
> +	if (args->timeout_ns == 0) {
>  		ret = -ETIME;
>  		goto out;
>  	}
> @@ -2969,7 +2969,8 @@ i915_gem_wait_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, struct drm_file *file)
>  	i915_gem_request_reference(req);
>  	mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
>  
> -	ret = __i915_wait_request(req, reset_counter, true, &args->timeout_ns,
> +	ret = __i915_wait_request(req, reset_counter, true,
> +				  args->timeout_ns>0 ? &args->timeout_ns : NULL,
>  				  file->driver_priv);
>  	mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
>  	i915_gem_request_unreference(req);
> -- 
> 2.1.4
> 

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Make WAIT_IOCTL negative timeouts be indefinite again

[Chris Wilson]

On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 01:27:43PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 06:09:26PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > This fixes a regression from
> > 
> > commit 5ed0bdf21a85d78e04f89f15ccf227562177cbd9
> > Author: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > Date:   Wed Jul 16 21:05:06 2014 +0000
> > 
> >     drm: i915: Use nsec based interfaces
> > 
> > that made a negative timeout return immediately rather than the
> > previously defined behaviour of waiting indefinitely.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> > Cc: Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
> > Cc: Kristian Høgsberg <krh@bitplanet.net>
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> 
> Do you have the igt for this too? I think an wait while the buffer should
> be busy with a negative timeout is all that's needed to exercise this.

Done.
Testcase: igt/gem_wait
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Make WAIT_IOCTL negative timeouts be indefinite again

[Daniel Vetter]

On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 08:54:35AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 01:27:43PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 06:09:26PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > This fixes a regression from
> > > 
> > > commit 5ed0bdf21a85d78e04f89f15ccf227562177cbd9
> > > Author: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > > Date:   Wed Jul 16 21:05:06 2014 +0000
> > > 
> > >     drm: i915: Use nsec based interfaces
> > > 
> > > that made a negative timeout return immediately rather than the
> > > previously defined behaviour of waiting indefinitely.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> > > Cc: Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Kristian Høgsberg <krh@bitplanet.net>
> > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > 
> > Do you have the igt for this too? I think an wait while the buffer should
> > be busy with a negative timeout is all that's needed to exercise this.
> 
> Done.
> Testcase: igt/gem_wait

Thanks a lot.

Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>

Cheers, Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Make WAIT_IOCTL negative timeouts be indefinite again

[Chris Wilson]

On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 05:48:26PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 08:54:35AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 01:27:43PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 06:09:26PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > This fixes a regression from
> > > > 
> > > > commit 5ed0bdf21a85d78e04f89f15ccf227562177cbd9
> > > > Author: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > > > Date:   Wed Jul 16 21:05:06 2014 +0000
> > > > 
> > > >     drm: i915: Use nsec based interfaces
> > > > 
> > > > that made a negative timeout return immediately rather than the
> > > > previously defined behaviour of waiting indefinitely.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> > > > Cc: Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
> > > > Cc: Kristian Høgsberg <krh@bitplanet.net>
> > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > > 
> > > Do you have the igt for this too? I think an wait while the buffer should
> > > be busy with a negative timeout is all that's needed to exercise this.
> > 
> > Done.
> > Testcase: igt/gem_wait
> 
> Thanks a lot.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89494
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Make WAIT_IOCTL negative timeouts be indefinite again

[Jani Nikula]

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 05:48:26PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 08:54:35AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 01:27:43PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 06:09:26PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> > > > This fixes a regression from
>> > > > 
>> > > > commit 5ed0bdf21a85d78e04f89f15ccf227562177cbd9
>> > > > Author: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
>> > > > Date:   Wed Jul 16 21:05:06 2014 +0000
>> > > > 
>> > > >     drm: i915: Use nsec based interfaces
>> > > > 
>> > > > that made a negative timeout return immediately rather than the
>> > > > previously defined behaviour of waiting indefinitely.
>> > > > 
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
>> > > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
>> > > > Cc: Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
>> > > > Cc: Kristian Høgsberg <krh@bitplanet.net>
>> > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>> > > 
>> > > Do you have the igt for this too? I think an wait while the buffer should
>> > > be busy with a negative timeout is all that's needed to exercise this.
>> > 
>> > Done.
>> > Testcase: igt/gem_wait
>> 
>> Thanks a lot.
>> 
>> Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89494

Pushed to drm-intel-fixes, thanks for the patch and review.

BR,
Jani.

> -Chris
>
> -- 
> Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx